Regional seminar on Comprehensive Security in South Asia

Organised by Institute for Foreign Affairs (IFA)

19-20 November 2004

Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had been invited as the chief guest at the inaugural of the seminar where he highlighted different aspects of comprehensive security. But the Prime Minister tried to draw the attention of the participants that aspect of security that was concerning many nations today, not only in South Asia, but the whole world-terrorism. The notion of traditional or military security, that the Prime Minister pointed out was enthusiastically taken up by participants during the regular working sessions later on.

Chairing the inaugural session was Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat. In his speech, he listed the achievements being made by the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation on security matters. He also promised that the relevant concerns raised during the working sessions of this Track II discussion would be taken up at the Track I level during the upcoming Dhaka summit.

Dev Raj Dahal, the FES head of Nepal office, said that the traditional notions of security that theoreticians had forwarded in the past was being expanded to include more immediate concerns of the people these days. For this, though, he said, the state needs to be made more capable of dealing with contemporary issues.

I

In the first working session, presentations were made by Farooq Sobhan of Bangladesh, Prof M.P. Lohani of Nepal and Ghani Jaffar of Pakistan. Sobhan's paper discussed the external relations of SAARC countries and explored the possibility of having a collective South Asian policy to respond to global issues. Some of the pre-requisites he sees are: human development in South Asia and need to involve major partners of the region like Japan, China and the US. His conclusion was that regional security was the key to human security in the region. He also said that a periodical report that assesses regional human security concerns, along the lines of the UN Human Development Report, could help in this regard.

The following are the excerpts of floor comments and queries made to him:

• Intelligence sharing at the South Asian level can be pursued as one area of regional cooperation.
• The papers lack the parameters defining the different aspects of comprehensive security. In South Asia, migration within the SAARC region has been occuring since history. Please include this as well.
• The presentation did not dwell on the emergence of new leadership in India, its impact on Indo-Pak ties and its beneficial effect on the SAARC summit.
• The academic exercises at the Track II level, which number over 1000, have now reached a stage that has resulted in three historical documents for the Track I process- the SAARC Charter, Plan of Action and Adoption which were signed at Islamabad. The academicians should now enthuse the concerned, like the paper writer emphasizes, to implement those documents.
• Security has three aspects-national, regional and global. Sobhan should answer what measures can be taken to strengthen regional security?
• We see the concept of security broadening to the community level from the national level. But who is the one responsible for providing that security? So far, we have had the state to do so. But, now, since it has moved beyond the reach of the states, who will take up the responsibility?
• The paper is comprehensive and appropriate. It zeroes in on three issues- Sobhan's involvement in trying to devise a regional way to deal with the second Bush administration. Please share with us your experience. Let me tell you that if the US had not assisted in Nepal's security after 9/11, this seminar exercise might not have taken place at this moment in time.
• Talking about comprehensive security is fine, but this should not undermine traditional military security, as it is the crux of security.
• Sobhan says the change in United States foreign policy regarding India and Pakistan. These two friends of the US are not friends themselves. Would they be encouraged to fight each other again because of US military help or will it bring them together? Since the US will not pursue anything without any national interest benefit. With the growing US involvement in South, should we be apprehensive or hopeful?
• The presentation talks about the need to expand Indian links with US to include other South Asian states as well. What would be the commonality of other South Asian states with the US to expand their ties? At least India has a diaspora and other issues that are directly connected with the US.
• The paper tries to link economic prosperity with comprehensive security. I do agree that the military aspect should not be neglected, although other areas are also important.
• Bush has been re-elected but the re-election of the new US Secretary of State has had many concerned about the US pursuing unilateralism even further. How do you think that the concept of comprehensive security works at a time when the US is pursuing more unilateralism?
• Some of the proposals that the paper has put forward are good, but there is hardly any practical measures to achieve the tasks proposed.
• The presentation appeared to be talking about combating terrorism. Combat is a military word which ultimately pushes one towards a military solution.
• Will comprehensive security in South Asia be complete without incorporating Chinese security concerns?

Sobhan's reply

My paper leaves out some points deliberately as other papers will be taking them up. I do agree that military security is central to any discussion on comprehensive security. We need to discuss the military security in the regional context. The SAARC treaty on terrorism does envisage some form of cooperation through intelligence sharing. But we find that many states are unilaterally pursuing bilateral ties with the United States but that could be expanded to make it a regional one as well.

Regarding the new leadership in India, my discussion with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has shown me that he was strongly committed to strengthening regional cooperation and shares our concerns on comprehensive security. He understands that India cannot prosper on its own by leaving the rest of the region behind.

My proposals center around a scheme for a South Asian forum quite akin to the ASEAN forum. This need not be within the SAARC framework.

[The US has a one-dimensional focus on military security in South Asia but we need to engage it on comprehensive security. We need to make them understand that. Yesterday I gave the American ambassador in Nepal a report on what the US role should be on South Asia. About Condoleeza Rice, the new secretary of state, there seems to be a misperception as the US envoy in Nepal who worked under her says that she is very knowledgeable about South Asia.]

Such dialogue with the Americans can take place in that proposed forum. In fact, the Chinese security perception can also be looked into from this forum and dialogue initiated with that country from this forum.

Three concrete results came out of the Islamabad summit. But we need to come out with concrete steps in realizing them for them to be fruitful. We need to constantly interact with the governments as they are a very cautious lot. I can assure you that every point that has been taken up by Track I in SAARC, has come through at the Track II. We can now move to make the civil society and governments work with each other. The governments have seen that people go independently of the government wishes as is seen in cricket matches between India and Pakistan.

Prof. Lohani, for his part, talked about the problems afflicting comprehensive security in the region. Environmental degradation, religious fundamentalism, mass poverty, lack of good governance and terrorism, he said, are all contributing to tensions in the region. India-Pakistan nuclearization has made neighbouring states nervous, he said. He also talked about cross-border terrorism and the problems brought about the open border between Nepal and India making it difficult for mitigating measures to work. The professor stressed India's centrality in resolving most of the issues and concluded that state capacity needs to be strengthened, even though non-state actors have been contributing to boost comprehensive security.

His paper solicited the following comments:

• India has deployed a strong border force on the Nepalese porous border, and Nepal has appreciated this gesture. Will this goodwill remain or will the Indian forces spill over into Nepal?
• SAARC has not been able to work on a consensus definition of terrorism. If we go back to the UN definition, it clearly distinguishes between freedom fighters and terrorists. Secondly, terrorism has a money trail. Injustice and deprivation and social and economic inequalities can lead to terrorism.
• You have missed out on how we can influence US policy.
• Why have you not included the intentions of certain states of South Asia to meddle with smaller states like Nepal? Those intentions are already available hidden in their own archives.

Mohan Lohani's reply

Regarding US foreign policy in South Asia and how we can make it adopt the comprehensive security approach, rather than just the military approach, first of all, we need to agree within the region about what comprehensive security is. Too many ideas are floating regarding the term, and a regional consensus is necessary before we approach others on that.

On the border forces on the open border with India, let us hope that the Indian concern about the Maoist menace spilling over to their territory provides them the necessary goodwill towards us.

Pakistan's Ghani Jaffar, the next presenter, dwelt on India-Pakistan relations and noted the recent peace moves by both sides. His focus was, however, on the scuttled peace processes in the past and the role of domestic politics of India in that regard. He had his suspicions about the ongoing peace moves between the countries saying that the internal power structure in Delhi could do it again, in spite of political commitment to move ahead with peace measures.

Excerpts of the queries and concerns coming from the floor:

• There is only casual reference to the India and Pakistan nuclear programmes in the presentation in spite of such a threat hanging over us. If there is an accident, the whole population is threatened. A close call in Dodhara in 1990 in India has already been witnessed. Nepal lies in the way of the radioactive wind if and when it does occur. Another is the post 9/11 scenario where non-state actors have developed the willingness to acquire nuclear materials. In Dhaka, several so-called nuclear terrorists had been arrested- another close call. Both India and Pakistan have refused to sign the conventions necessary to stop proliferation.
• Unless we incorporate a security agenda in the SAARC forum, how can we talk of the subject here?

Ghani Jaffar's reply
The nuclear non-proliferation conventions should have been adopted. Pakistan has been calling for a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. Nepal to has shown its commitment as it wanted to be declared a zone of peace. There should be mechanisms in place to prevent nuclear accidents.

Regarding China's inclusion, Pakistan has always called for Chinese involvement, but India sees it as a rival. What can one do?
The impatience about SAARC's non-inclusion of security issues, is not surprising. But look at ASEAN which took a long time to come where it is today. Let us give SAARC some time.

Madhukar Rana from the chair
Making comprehensive security too broad a concept, may not allow us to build a practical framework. Secondly, the position of national security against comprehensive and regional security needs to be tackled for a workable solution.

Somehow, the old issues have been clobbered into the new baskets of good governance and human security and the like.

Economic and political dimensions will have to be brought in as part and parcel of comprehensive security. Again, not just material progress but also values need to be preserved. This should also form part of the concept.

Comprehensive security is said to promote the concept of global governance. And, globalisation is taking both dimensions, not only prosperity but also diseases and terrorism have been growing globally. Even the UN is not ready to take up the new challenges emerging today.

II

The second working session was chaired by Ghani Jaffar and presentations were made by Jayaraj Acharya of Nepal, Pervez Iqbal Cheema, Prakash A. Raj and Jehan Perera. Acharya's paper on "Security and Governance in South Asia" traces the roots of insecurity lying in governance issues. He says that all the seven SAARC members suffer from these causes of insecurity. Insecurity breeds instability of governments and vice versa, he said. The only remedy to the situation, Acharya said, are visionary leaders who can lead like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore and Mohammad Mahathir of Malaysia.

Excerpts from floor comments on Acharya's paper:

• The paper identifies the main factors of good governance like leadership, but how are we going to have a good leadership? You focus on terminologies, but what would lead us to actually act?
• The presenter dwelt on good governance but forgot to deal with the role of corruption in good governance.
• Exploitation of resources is also a reason for violence. Also, how do we get rid of bad leaders?

Acharya's reply
The type of leadership depends on the civil society which has the power to ostracize bad leaders. Leaders are born. Even Prithvi Narayan Shah who was surrounded by illiterate people could unite this nation during precarious times.

Pervez Iqbal Cheema's presentation on "Religious Conflicts in South Asia and Impact on Security" centered around his thesis that there is no religious conflict in the world, just that religion has been used by political actors in conflicts. Religions can be used to escalating conflict, but that alone is not enough to generate conflict unless it is combined with other factors like economic deprivation. The ethnic or external factor or ideological factors can be combined with religion to make a potent mixture, he said.

Excerpts of the floor comments:

• On the question of internationalization of the negotiations and peace process, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in India appeared to be more hands-off than others. Hence, is it not good for peace itself?
• Elections in May 2004 in India showed that extremists of any hue can be removed from power. And, Cheema believes that conflicts cannot be resolved by military means alone. People got fed up with the emphasis on the Hindu aspect and voted the BJP out of power.
• It is not religion by itself that is the cause for conflict, but politicians who want to use religion as a tool for conflict.
• We talk of security in South Asia and then talk of globalization as if the two are isolated from each other. When 12 Nepalese were butchered in Iraq, this seminar was postponed because of the September riots in Nepal. We cannot talk about South Asian security in isolation.
• Cheema should have divided the violence into those coming from long term and those from short term injustices.
  

Cheema's reply
Elections can remove a bad leader. I agree. I also happen to believe that Indo-Pakistan peace efforts this time is different because people feel it so.

Regarding, the concern about long-term and short term violence, when an extremist died in Pakistan some time ago, the followers were not allowed to hold a funeral and a riot erupted immediately. This is how violence can erupt instantaneously.

I agree that the impact of global and remote developments does take place on South Asia. The end of the Cold War did have an impact on us. I agree.

I also agree that religious sentiments are being abused.

The next presentation was on bilateral relations between Nepal and India by Prakash A. Raj where he listed the bilateral transactions between the two countries after the British left India. The uneasy ties between the two were highlighted by Raj, especially during those points in time where India did not see Nepal acting to accommodating its security concerns. According to him, this attitude is recently changing especially with the rise of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and their misuse of the open border between the two countries. He forecasted that Nepal-China ties would grow in significance in the future, especially with China's linking of Tibet with the mainland with a railway and other development works there. But he also saw India playing a crucial role in exploiting economic resources through investments in Nepal.

Comments from the floor:

• One important lesson of keeping the border between Nepal and India open is that India is in a dilemma. Strict border management will be detested, but today we know that it cannot be allowed to go on being open. Nepalese see that India provides shelter to the Maoists and the Indians have started taking action. A major lesson here is that none of us can afford to have bases against our neighbours.
• Raj has waxed eloquent of Indian security concerns but does not mention Nepal's security concerns vis a vis India. While reviewing Nepal-India ties, he makes no mention of the Indian blockade on Nepal and also Nepal's zone of peace proposal, especially at a time when Nepal has been turned into the killing fields. What about our security concern- Maoists getting sanctuary in India, for example? Only recently have they started arresting Maoist leaders beginning with C.P. Gajurel in Chennai.
• How does the author see Nepal and India coming together on the Maoist issue? Will they be more together than ever before?
• Nepal has agreed to allow India to open a consulate in Birgunj, signed the Upper Karnali and Seti projects, the fiber-optic networks etc. These new developments need to be included in Raj's paper.

Prakash Raj's reply
The Nepal-India border is open in spite of the largest concentration of population in the border areas. The border on the Tibetan side is closed although it is sparsely populated. This is an anomaly. Nepal's south-western border sees a lot of Maoists crossing the border to and from Nepal.

I agree that Nepal's security concern and not been accommodated by India. If India had been more cooperative we could have resolved the Maoist problem much earlier.

The thesis that Nepal can be a bridge between India and China is agreeable too.

Raj's presentation was followed by another on bilateral ties. This time it was Jehan Perera on "Indo-Lanka Relations: Recent Trends". India has been playing different roles at different times in the Sri Lankan conflict, Perera said and explained, it first became the concerned neighbour, then a partisan actor, then a mediator, then an enforcer and now again a concerned neighbour. Indians have reasons to be concerned about their security as, strategically, Sri Lanka breaks its domination of the southern seas. Also, there are the ethnic ties with the Tamils. The Sinhalese see India as one who would not design a breakup of Sri Lanka. The Tamils see India as the last resort. Peace negotiators see India as a complicating factor, he said. He went on the describe these complex ties being manifest in the developments since the Tamil conflict began.

Excerpts of floor comments:

• The Indo-Lanka free trade agreement can be taken as a good example of ties between the two countries. The gains could be a win-win for both. It has improved the bilateral balance of trade.
• Regarding Sri Lanka, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Pereara should take the domestic politics into account in his analysis. The Indian dynamics in the 70s should also have been included. India would be happy if a resolution includes Sri Lankan territorial integrity and federal autonomy.
• If the Sri Lankans do not focus on resolution bilaterally with the Tamils and involve international parties instead, there could be international pressure on them. And, the government is more vulnerable to international pressure than the Tamils.
• Is the Sri Lankan maneuver just tactical or strategic?
• What is Perera's assessment on the neutrality of Norway in the peace process in Sri Lanka?
• What is the Lankan assessment of the internationalization of the peace process and the ramifications of the involvement of various actors?
• Can the present Lankan president contribute to reducing tensions in South Asia?
• You say that the 1987 Sri Lankan peace accord has failed. I differ. All the presidents and prime ministers have been shuttling to Delhi to keep India posted on the peace process.

Jehan Perera's reply
The LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] is asking the government for a semi-independent state with nominal central government presence. Tamils would like to have their own army and all. But, India, or for that matter, the Sri Lankans, would have concerns about that. The concern is also that the LTTE should not be allowed to form a dictatorship. But the present government appears to have less concerns about these matters. This is what I meant by being hard-line. The former government wanted to welcome the international community as a safety net. This is not so with the present government. And India is happier for that.

Regarding the free trade agreement, there is another defence agreement attached with it. This is a matter of concern for Sri Lankans. Also, India has said it would help build the Sri Lankan airport, but on condition that Indian military planes be allowed to land there.
LTTE's disregard for international pressure is a myth. They are scared they will be banned in other countries.

A new Indo-Lanka initiative would depend on the Indian initiative.

Regarding Norway's neutrality, there have been concerns about their extra-sensitivity to LTTE concerns. But the present government thinks that Norway is still a viable mediator.

The new government is ideologically closer to India than the former government. But, still, foreign donors have offered a much bigger pie than the Indians. So no one can be discounted as yet.

DAY II
I

The first session of the second day was chaired by CV Ranganathan of India. The paper by Suba Chandran "Intra-State Armed Conflicts in South Asia: Impact on Regional Security" was presented by Mallika Joseph in his absence. Her presentation dwelt on the contribution of various factors that affect their waxing and waning, e.g. external support, state response and also support from diaspora, she said. Other points of the presentation: Religion is entering into existing conflicts like the independence movement in Kashmir is turning into a jihad of the Muslims and the northeastern conflicts are joining links with fundamentalist organisations. Secondly, conflicts are getting more violent. Thirdly, they are getting prolonged which in turn means that public tolerance for violence is increasing. Fourth, terrorism is getting even nuclear, suicide attacks and newer forms of violence. External involvement does not work to resolve conflict e.g. in Sri Lanka where India burnt its fingers.

Comments on the presentation:

• Democratic governance could remove many issues and help prevent conflicts. States can be strong but their delivery mechanism can be weak. Kashmir is an example. Marginalisation is working to create more conflicts today. Let domestic conflicts not turn into an international terrorist movement.
• You said northeastern separatists have links with fundamentalist organisations. Which ones?
• To what extent are external factors responsible in intra-state conflict-- in Kashmir or Sri Lanka or even the Maoist movement in Nepal? We have been dubbing all of them terrorists. It is difficult for the Nepalese to believe that Maoists were doing their activities in India without the notice of Indian security officials.
• The political dimension is inalienable from armed conflicts. Nepalese PMs have met Maoist leaders in India. What does this mean politically? During major attacks by Maoists, some Nepalese political leaders have been out of the country.
• Foreign invested media have been promoting conflict in Nepal. Such media are worse than the Maoists. Their bias has been creating conflicts. Fighting with muscles is one thing but here a war is taking place with ideas.
• The paper talks about terrorism but is unable to provide the morals being adopted in those movements. What about recent trends like child soldiers?
• The assertion of the author that external involvement will not resolve conflict is questionable.

Mallika Joseph's reply
The paper talks of Islamic fundamentalists linking up with northeastern movements.

External involvement in conflict has a kick-back effect on the external actor.

Regarding the abating of Nepalese Maoists in India, I think that the Indians did not act as the Maoists did not harm Indians. But Nepal too allows jihadis in its territory and the hijack took place.

This was followed by B.C. Upreti's presentation "Environment Security in South Asia: Dimensions Issues and Problems" where he focused on the general environmental degradation in the region. Resource depletion is creating crises in many countries, he said and added, human induced environmental degradation and the environmentally insensitive kind of development paradigms being followed are common to South Asian countries. Inter-state and intra-state conflicts can take place over the use of natural resources, he said. Upreti saw South Asia having regional environmental linkages making it susceptible to sharing the problems that arise in one part of the region- migration, refugees, floods and water scarcity and so on- with other parts. He added that mitigating measures need to be coordinated and over-enthusiastic response avoided.

Floor comments and queries:

• The Chinese nuclear sites in the north and the Indian and Pakistani sites in the south makes Nepal vulnerable. We also talked of environmental security. My question is why have you not raised the issue of radioactivity in regional security.
• The author should have studied the United Nations Environmental Programme study of 2002 and the magnificent disaster report published by the SAARC. You have not referred to the Indian environmental movements, the Nepal-India resource disputes etc.. Also you should have discussed the highland-lowland conflicts, particularly with water scarcity in mind. Also Nepal's forest cover is on the rise, not falling like you say. You talk of regional environmental security but what is wrong with Kyoto?
• The author talked about the millennium development goals, but SAARC as a region is far behind on that.
• Flood warning is a good area of cooperation.

BC Upreti's reply
The environmental movements are more of a pressure on the government rather than related with environmental security. Other issues like migration, refugees and floods are all contributory issues. I agree that Kyoto provides a good example, but I was talking about regionalizing the environmental concerns. We are more concerned with floods and like issues.

MR Josse's presentation dealt with "China in South Asia: An emerging Dynamic". China is interlinked with South Asia especially when we talk of environmental security and economic activities of natural resource exploitation, particularly the river basin concept of development, he said. His argument was that all major rivers of the region originate in China and that the country needed to be involved in the process. The South Asian sub-regional initiative could follow the Mekong river basin framework, which does include China in the partnership, he said. Trade too is an area where China with its huge market can play a positive role. Josse said that India needs to change its attitude that South Asia is completely isolated from China. China's role in the region needs to be acknowledged, he said.

Comments and queries from the floor:

• China's own willingness or initiative to join a web of multilateral institution was not there in the sixties, in fact right up to the 90s. Mechanisms and dialogues must be put in place to get China join in.
• We are happy that both India and China are marching ahead and will soon reach the pinnacle. The modernization movement in China made them a global power while we were involved in creating the SAARC. The Chinese had been watching us with interest since then. China's role in SAARC will be vital in the future. SAARC has already reached adulthood in its 20th year. Would not it be good to have China as a dialogue partner for SAARC, along with Japan, the US and other countries, quite akin to what ASEAN has?
• China has already joined BIMST-EC and others, what kind of ties would you envisage for China?
• The nuclear dimension makes the case of China in South Asia even stronger.
• Regarding who should be in or out of SAARC. We had come to a conclusion at the time of its formation that a common civilization should be the determining factor. China has the potential in economic growth and we lie at the periphery. Nevertheless, we need a regional leader, like India, but the Pannikar doctrine will not do. May be Gujral doctrine or some other would be better. For regional cooperation, India can begin by opening 2-3 per cent of its GDP for regional trade and make its currency the common currency.
• What is holding China from joining SAARC?
• The author talks about reluctance of bringing in China even for water resource sharing. But China thinks that Tibet is sparsely populated and water resource is expensive to exploit. They are more concerned about environmental degradation there. With India, the Koshi project was aimed at controlling floods in Bihar but with little benefit for Nepal. Regional cooperation could include the environmental component.
• The recent entry of China into ESCAP has made it change its name.
• What role does China's have in Kashmir? Especially because China is directly linked with its border with Kashmir?
• Bill Clinton had asked China to play a role in defusing India-China tension in the past.
• Do you want China to be engaged at the bilateral level or the multilateral level?

MR Josse's reply
Nepal has no problems with China's linkages with SAARC. My understanding is that all SAARC countries would welcome China as a dialogue partner. The possible objection is likely to come from India. Still, the foreign ministers meeting in July was told to work on a concept paper on China as a dialogue partner of SAARC. The paper is to be presented in Dhaka during the 13th summit. India might go along then as well.

India is reluctant to go along with King Birendra's visionary Colombo plan outline, regarding regional efforts to exploit natural resources like the rivers. I say this because this does not figure in the SAARC anywhere.

Chairman's comment: Is Nepal prepared for huge inundations? Is Tibet prepared? Let us become less emotional. I agree that Nepal did not benefit from Koshi, but let us take more successful examples like Chukha. There is no problem with third party involvement in the SAARC process. The problem is with countries within the region.

Tashi Choden's presentation on "Indo-Bhutan Relations: Latest Trends" outlined the history of her country saying that Bhutan had been prompted into reevaluating its isolationist policy in the 50s after the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the China-India war of 1962. In spite of Bhutan's historical ties with Tibet, the Chinese policies made Bhutan develop ties with India. India too wanted the Himalayan states in its strategic fold. This led to Indo-Bhutan relations to take concrete form. She noted Nehru's speech during his visit to Bhutan which established the country as sovereign in the eyes of India as significant. She also said that Bhutan's exercise of foreign affairs was not constricted by Article 2 of the Bhutan-India treaty, that requires Bhutan to seek Indian advice to conduct it That, she said, has become obsolete when the country became the member of the United Nations with Indian backing. Water resources, defence matters and foreign policies were key areas of cooperation between the two countries, Choden said. But, she said that, the prospects of China and India coming together should not undermine Bhutan-India ties. Since Bhutan has adopted neutrality and national identity as an alternative security measure, India should consider Bhutan's vulnerabilities like economic migrants from the region and the separatists from across the border, she said.

Floor comments:

• Bhutan's wisdom lies in resource exploitation with close cooperation with its neighbour. This needs to be emulated by others.
• While explaining Article 2 of the treaty to the French ambassador at the UN once, the envoy had finally said, "India should be congratulated for guiding Bhutan to the UN."
• Bhutanese diplomacy is successful. They are well ahead of us, the Nepalese. They worked hard for ties with India and they are reaping the benefits. Bhutan should now develop its ties with other neighbours, not only with India.
• Is economic liberalization in Bhutan going in tandem with political liberalization?
• Bhutan are exporting energy but losing from the multiplier effects that would accrue from industrialization if it were to be used by Bhutan itself.
• Nepal and Bhutan have a standing refugee problem. Would it not pose a security threat to Bhutan later on? But Tashi Choden has not even mentioned it.
• If China and India make up, what do you think would China's role be in Bhutan? Have they renounced their claim on Bhutan?
• Do you see Indian involvement in resolving the Bhutanese refugees issue?
• When one sixth of your population become refugees you think it is a peaceful country. Is it not ironic?
• The Bhutanese refugees came through India. It is a unique situation. How do you look at this problem objectively. Please don't toe the official line?
• Regarding Indo-Bhutan trade, liberalization has been continuing in India and Bhutan will have to liberalize as well. India should help Bhutan enter the WTO. India should also gradually pay more for the electricity it buys from Bhutan.

Tashi's reply
Bhutan does realize that ties will have to be developed with other countries, not just India.

Bhutan's development policy is to go slowly without affecting people's welfare. Regarding political liberalization, the national assembly has started representing people and decentralization has been initiated. The King is just a head of the state and commander-in-chief of the army at the moment.

Regarding Bhutanese refugees, it is an issue of big concern, but explaining that was not my intention. It is a bilateral issue. The two governments have agreed on this and I do not see any Indian role in the future.

We did not send 100,000 to the camps. The people in the camps were just 6,000 initially and rapidly grew to 100,000. I just see the problem as an offshoot of rampant poverty in South Asia.

My unofficial view is to agree with the official stance. The problem should be resolved as soon as possible.

In the event of India and China making up, it would be a good scenario for Bhutan.

II

The last working session seminar, chaired by Keshav Jha, began with Humayun Kabir's presentation on "Recent Trends in Bangladesh-India Relations". His presentation dealt with the contemporary issues in bilateral ties between the two countries. In it he discussed issues related with the border, trade, insurgent camps in Bangladesh, transit, gas exploration and water, particularly India's changing stance on several of them. Kabir's presentation highlighted the differences on these issues and said that water saw the most contentious of them. He said that India's no-first-use policy regarding N-arms made Bangladesh concerned particularly because of the policy not applying to countries allying with N-nations. Finally, he called for more friendliness in the foreign policies between the two countries so that both of them could benefit.

Excerpts of floor comments:

• The author is wrong about India's no-first-use nuclear doctrine. India lays down no preconditions.
• Why would US be interested to export Bangladeshi gas to India?
• China's insistence that Bangladesh resolve issues with India is nothing new. It also told Nepal the same thing in the past.
• Is India's look-east policy because of failure of efforts to open pipelines through Pakistan?
• Regarding Indian militants in Bangladesh, it is bad for both India and Bangladesh. Black money is pouring into Bangladeshi textiles through the militants.
• The author says that India supports particular parties in power. Please elaborate.
• Burma has discovered huge gas reserves. Would Bangladesh see possibility of Burmese gas going to India through Bangladesh?
• Regarding water, regional approach to exploitation is a good idea. Bangladesh should be more accommodative as it could be turned into another Hong Kong through sub-regional cooperation, because it holds command over the Bay of Bengal. You also raised the transit issue. Transhippment might be a better term. Because transit is bound by legal authority and laws exist to do so. In this regard, I request India to sign the convention. None of the coastal states have been signing it.

Kabir's reply
If I am wrong about the no-first use doctrine, I would be very happy man.

On gas, the US is interested in investing and would like the Indian market to consume it.

Regarding Indian militants working in Bangladesh, the latest report says 195 camps are operating from Bangladesh. One of the 195 camps that is claimed happens to be our own institute.

It used to be true that India supported one particular party, but my understanding is that that is no more the case.

Water treaties were signed only during Morarji Desai's tenure and Devegowda's tenure. That too is no more the case now.

Regarding water resources, we would prefer a multilateral approach.

Next in line was C.V. Ranganathan's presentation on "Major Powers and South Asia" where he sees better days ahead for South Asian security. This, particularly because both India and China were developing closer ties. "Stability will be a big factor in the days to come," he said and added that Panchasheel will be the important guiding light. The thing that has changed today is the changing centre of economic gravity to Asia. When Vajpayee visited China in 2003, the draft of cooperation that was signed, contained commitment from both India and China for South Asian cooperation. Ranganathan also expected US President George Bush to moderate his policies after his re-election, especially in the light of Europeans toeing such a line in global policy. And, this, he said, is good for South Asia.

Floor comments and questions:

• On N-stability, global development counts because N-countries are global players. The second factor is regional. And, these major powers all have double-standards. The US threw IAEA to pressurize Iran, but nothing has been done regarding North Korea.
• Indo-Pak normalization is vital for the success of SAARC.
• Is the author implying that there is a collective threat from an external source to South Asia?
• Can't we have a collective security concept like Europe?
• What about US-China dynamics as you talked about China-South Asia and US-South Asia dynamics separately. US is supporting Nepal against the Maoists and other similar issues are also there. How is China looking at these developments?
• The presentation did not include an important aspect which the Nepalese have noticed. India had objected to Nepalese imports of Chinese arms in 1989, but the post 9/11 situation changed that Indian stance. The US has since then been able to send arms to Nepal through India. This is a good change of heart on the part of India because India sees the Maoists as a threat too. The role of the US has been significant in South Asia. Last year, Gen. Ashok Mehta of India had said that India did not launch a limited war on Pakistan because of the presence of American troops in Pakistan.
• There is no single culture in South Asia. There are two: the Indus and Ganga-Jamuna cultures.
• Bangladesh was almost bombed by a nuclear device in the seventies, and that would have affected us as well. When will India sign the nuclear conventions?
• The author says we need sensitivity. Indian bureaucrats advise politicians to be tough on their neighbours, but once retired, they say otherwise.
• Nepal or other neighbours have a difficult time developing without Indian goodwill. But for Nepal, unilateral actions by India like in the refugee crisis, trade imbalance from arbitrary policies, and dams and dykes come in the way of better relations.

Ranganathan's reply
The growth quadrangle excludes Pakistan because of impatience with the SAARC pace which does include Pakistan. Now it has expanded to BIMST-EC. This is good news. India should have participated in the ASEAN network, but made a mistake then. It is also good that Pakistan also has a status in ASEAN.

SAARC does not face a collective threat. But we should get our acts together. The Chinese accommodate US interests in Central Asia in practice, in spite of writings showing concerns about that. Russia has been doing the same. But China and India have achieved that maturity which does not need cards while dealing with each other.

AQ Khan is not alone in selling N-materials to Iran. There is a lot of double standards among N-powers.

Inder Nath Mukherjee's presentation on "Trade Liberalization and Human Security in South Asia" focused on geoeconomics, rather than geopolitics, saying that it was the determining factor in the relations between countries today. But this requires very shrewd negotiations on the part of South Asian diplomats, he said. He charted the growth of the South Asian countries and said that the pace of liberalization, although a must, has to be determined by the country in question. He also recommended that agriculture be protected by South Asia as it is a livelihood issue.

Floor comments:

• How does the author visualize SAFTA taking care of human security?
• What is India's role in future challenges in WTO talks?
• Pakistan's economy is consistently growing, as opposed to the author's thesis. The problem is that Pakistan might not be able to sustain it.
  
• The paper talks about calibration. How far would you accept WTO suzerainty? I would rather talk of finding other ways to make up for the losses to the farmers from the state concerned.
  
• Special and differential treatment with tariffs can be given to handicapped countries.
  
• Indian tariff is too high, subsidy is too high. All that is hurting farmers of other South Asian countries. Even the interest rate is too high in India.
  

Mukherjee's reply
Competition is the key to liberalization, but even within the region some lists are developed to protect some items. SAFTA should therefore take calibration as an important issue.

LDCs [least developed countries] do not have to make commitments that others have to make. Within three years, all countries will be required to give 0 per cent tariff for LDCs.

Pakistan faced negative growth in the 90s and recent growth rates do not make up for that.

Non-LDCs should sit together to work out the calibration in the WTO regime for collective benefit.

Primary products in India are duty free and I do not think high tariff rates affect them.

The last presentation of the seminar, Nischal Nath Panday's "Refugees in South Asia and Impact on Regional Security" discussed countries in the region not having a uniform policy regarding refugees. Even within one country, for example, India protects only the Sri Lankans while others from Afghanistan, Tibet, Bhutan, Myanmar face the prospects of repatriation. It also provides sanctuary to those fighting political battles in their home countries. In Nepal's case, which hosts Bhutanese refugees, he said that even India has proved unkind in treating the Lhotsampas. Panday thinks that a South Asian framework is needed to deal with refugees in the region.

Floor comments and questions:

• The author talks about Kashmiri Brahmins. Their interest in the Kashmir issue should also be included in a settlement.
  
• Pakistan has assimilated a huge number of refugees in the past millennia. Many of the Afghans might not go back too. Pakistan is a melting pot.
  
• Migration will never be controlled by policy. But we need to recognize it and form policy around it. Free movement of labour in South Asia is one possible policy that we could adopt.
  
• The author says Bhutan expelled its own citizens. This is not true. If you come to Thimpu, you will see that they are doing well in Bhutan. With regard to dilly-dallying of Thimpu in the resolution, officials were attacked making it impossible to work. You talk of Bhutan pursuing discrimination. Is your viewpoint the official view of Nepal?

Panday's reply
I agree that Kashmiri pandits should be taken care of.

A regional mechanism would be appropriate for South Asia. I do not know of other regional blocs, except OAU, that deals with refugees.
On Bhutanese refugees, I do believe that the policy was discriminatory. The 100,000 Bhutanese were booted out of the country. Amnesty International has said that Bhutanese army has conducted the most brutal rapes. I say 'dillydallying' because it has already been 14 years of attempting to resolve the issue. Whenever there appears to be pressures, like international human rights meets, Bhutan starts showing interest. Otherwise, not.

The Nepali media is free and criticizes who it likes and does not have to agree with the government.

Concluding Session

Devraj Dahal, head of FES Nepal: We discussed the bio, techno and social spheres for the sake of comprehensive security. We are moving ahead from the Westphalian notion of security towards an inter-disciplinary notion of security. How do we move towards a post-national society? Coordination, steering and collective action have been discussed in the last two days. Ideas have been identified for future debate. The only question is how to relate those ideas to the framework of policy. I thank you all.

C.V. Ranganathan, on behalf of the participants: We thank IFA and FES for choosing an interesting topic for debate as it has been able to give us something to move with in the future. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to know so much.
In India, there is a rethink going on about what it can do with the responsibility it has been thrusted with.

Nischal Panday: We have had theoretical discussions, dissecting problems. We also discussed on Indian role in everything. This is because of India's central role and that is why most papers had focused their ties with India. Please make adjustments in your paper within 15-20 days so that we have time to send it to the publisher for publication.

Chairman: The PM spoke of a rising threat and the need to develop a common platform to combat it. The state minister for foreign affairs talked about identifying new areas for cooperation. The discussion tried to bring many issues to the fore. Thank you for a lively participation.